I think we can all agree there are some pretty stupid regulation
In saying that the regulations are "pretty stupid", you're indirectly also implying that the many people (dozens? hundreds?) involved in writing the regulations were too dumb to think of the objections you could have brought up.
There's usually a deeper reason that [insert regulation you don't like] is the way that it is.
For example:
- 9i2) All the results of a round are considered to take place on the last calendar date of the round. If a regional record is broken multiple times on the same calendar date, only the best result is recognized as breaking that regional record.
I think that this should be changed, so that all regional records will be noted, no matter for how long.
The WCA database does not track the exact clock time at which a solve is attempted. In the event that there are two competitions held on the same day in the same region, and two people break the old regional records
but at different times, the database won't know who did it first, which is a vital piece of information to determine whether to award only one regional record or to award two. This doesn't even need to involve two competitions; it could even be two people in the same round of the same competition.
Requiring score taking to also include the clock time may significantly slow down competition progress, and there's still the risk of data entry mistakes.
Edit to clarify: I don't mean to say that the regulations are perfect or that it'd be presumptuous to make suggestions on how to change them. I'm just saying that, as an evolving document, the WCA regulations have had a lot of the obvious kinks ironed out over the years, and what might seem like an "obvious" suggestion could have non-obvious drawbacks. Maybe it's still a good suggestion! (Or maybe it's not!) The suggestions are definitely still worth discussing, anyhow.
See also:
Chesterton's fence.
---
Master pyraminx just combines two events that are in the WCA, pyraminx and 4x4 (which are two of the worst events IMO).
Oh, hard disagree. Master pyraminx solves are indeed somewhat similar to pyraminx solves, but unlike big cubes, it seems that the fastest method for master pyra
isn't reduction-based, and even master pyra reduction method isn't all that similar to big cubes reduction method.
It's "like" a 4×4×4 only in the sense that it has three cutting planes per axis (and one of the planes is for the trivial tips!), which seems like a very superficial sense of likeness.